MTA Construction

At a meeting at the end of July in 2003, the MTA Board decided to form the Capital Construction Company. An offshoot of the construction shops within the various agencies and an attempt at consolidating construction efforts, Capital Construction was designed to serve as a clearinghouse for all major capital programs, as the MTA said in a press release. On the precipice of a once-in-a-generation expansion effort that would see the authority build a new subway line for the first time in decades, people with specialized knowledge had to oversee the efforts.

At the time, the MTA lauded its new internal division. Then-MTA Chair Peter Kalikow had just appointed Mysore Nagarajan to head up the agency, and a bright future seemed on the horizon as the MTA prepared to build the Second Ave. Subway, the 7 line extension, the East Side Access tunnel, the Fulton St. transit hub and the new South Ferry terminal. “Moving these mega projects forward is a real challenge,” Kalikow said at the time. “We are confident that Mysore Nagaraja is the ideal person to get these jobs done, on time and within budget.”

Fast forward nearly seven years and things have not gone according to plan. The Second Ave. Subway, originally set for a Phase I completion in 2012, may open in 2017 if we’re lucky. The Fulton St. Hub is seven years later and nearly 100 percent over budget. The South Ferry Terminal opened 14 months late and with engineering difficulties that continue to this very day. The smooth sailing that Kalikow predicted in 2003 hasn’t come to pass.

In The Post yesterday, Tom Namako offered up a seemingly tortured history of MTA Capital Construction and blamed institutional bloat for the authority’s construction woes. Namako reports:

Salaries and staff at the MTA division charged with overseeing the transit agency’s $15 billion in megaprojects have ballooned for five straight years — even though many of its high-profile construction jobs fell behind schedule and ran over budget during that time. MTA Capital Construction staffing skyrocketed from 39 employees in 2004 to 151 in 2009, increasing total payroll by $10.6 million, according to records obtained by The Post.

The division’s ranks were filled with construction experts and engineers whose job it is to make sure contractors hit deadlines and don’t overspend, and to manage the $21 billion budget that includes the Second Avenue Subway and scores of station rehabs. Total payroll in 2004 — a year after the division was created — was $4.1 million. By 2009, it had grown to $14.7 million… But the MTA said the approved budget for 2010 reduced salaries and staff in the division.

Total payroll was decreased by $1.5 million, and the head count dropped by 21. When the division was created, the intent was to always keep head count below 150, a goal it has hit, said MTA spokesman Jeremy Soffin. And that’s even as the cost of mega-project contracts has increased by 187 percent and the number of contractor employees will grow by 284 percent, which happens because special construction work — like boring massive tunnels — has begun, Soffin said.

I understand the point The Post is trying to make. The money spent on capital construction has exploded in recent years, and at a time when the MTA’s operating budget is taxed, its capital expenditures have come under fire. Yet, this article seems to miss the point.

The better question about these numbers isn’t the what of it; rather, it’s the why of it. Why have costs grown so steeply over the last seven years? Since 2004, when many of the capital projects were simply plans and schematics on paper, the MTA has started digging out three train tunnels and is deploying numerous workers at sites across the city. If anything, the pace of projects has slowed because there aren’t enough people ensuring that the projects are on pace and on target. After all, when was the last time New York City witnessed any multi-billion-dollar construction projects let alone three at once?

In the end, one of the problems facing the MTA seven years ago was one of knowledge. It seems today as though the MTA and its Capital Construction department were ill prepared for the demands of new subway construction amidst a densely populated city with aging infrastructure. Lately, the various projects are proceeding on pace, and timelines and costs have settled. But there’s no denying that MTA Capital Construction had a rocky start. It’s no so much a matter of bloat as it is growing pains.

The more I read about Jay Walder, the more I feel as though he gets it. After his comments about increasing and improving bus service earlier this week, Walder spoke to the Citizens Budget Commission yesterday about the the fate of the MTA’s big projects. With the CBC criticizing the MTA’s capital construction efforts for constant delays and cost overruns, Walder believes the MTA must focus on its current projects and not add new ones.

“I don’t really think this is the time for grand plans. We have enough on our plate already,” Walder said. “I think we have to focus this organization right now on execution and delivery.”

For those of us who dream of the TriboroRX or the numerous other pie-in-the-sky subway expansion plans, we’ll have to suffer. But on the whole, Walder’s vision is the right one. The MTA should work toward completing projects currently under construction before taking on new ones. They should continue to work on the Fulton St. Transit Center; they should pick up the pace along Second Ave.; they should continue apace with the East Side Access project.

Yet, although I think Walder’s priorities are in the right place, he should consider looking ahead to a time when these projects are finished. He should think about planning for Phase II of the Second Ave. Subway simply because much of the tunnel is already in place. He should think about ways to improve service that don’t cost billions of dollars per mile.

At the same time, he has a perception problem to battle as well. As a part of the Daily News article covering his speech, the paper’s website presents a poll asking readers which project should be the first one tackled by Walder. The vast plurality of voters chose “Better service. Too many subway and bus lines have been cut.”

The reality is that no subway lines have been cut, and bus service hasn’t been reduced to a point where anyone should notice. Generally, a bunch of buses that carried few people were eliminated from the schedules, and no routes were axed. Could service be better? Sure. But most the improvements would come from the other proposed solutions — station renovations, mechanized trains lines with arrival boards, etc.

This poll simply highlights the disconnect between people’s knowledge of the subway and reality under ground. During the Doomsday talks last winter, the MTA said it would cut service, and the Straphangers held highly publicized funerals for the W and Z. Yet, in the end, Albany stepped, and these trains were not cut. Riders, however, are unaware of this fact.

So far, Walder has talked a good game, but he has to convince Albany that he is for a real and an ignorant public that he is looking out for riders’ interests. He’s had the job for all of 17 days now. In two and a half months, he plans to a report with goals and timetables for MTA projects. Then, we’ll see just how well he plans to handle a demanding job.

The Citizens Budget Commission has joined the long line of watchdog organizations bashing the MTA for its inability to manage its capital construction program. With a new five-year plan out that currently suffers from a $10.8 billion budget gap, the CBC report criticizes the MTA for its lack of fiscal awareness and its inability to control the cost and completion schedule for its big-ticket projects.

For long-time readers of Second Ave. Sagas and for anyone who follows subway news, this report is hardly a surprise. After all, the Second Ave. Subway completion date has been pushed by nearly a decade since it was first announced, and the Fulton St. Transit Center is nearly 100 percent over budget and five or six years behind schedule. But the CBC report — available here as a PDF — is fairly stunning in its depth. On nearly every capital campaign project, the MTA has either not met costs or can’t meet its own construction timeline.

“The MTA should do a better job of managing its capital plans and be more realistic in what it promises to accomplish,” Charles Brecher, research director of the Citizens Budget Commission, said. “Now is the time to make improvements, so that the next plan is one on which the MTA can actually deliver.”

The CBC report examined nearly 800 MTA projects that totaled $18.6 billion and came away with the following conclusions as presented in its executive summary:

• The MTA Board 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 accordance with the plan. Available reports do not cover all of the projects in the plan, do not correspond to items and categories in the plan for covered items, and do not relate consistently to project milestones other than start and completion.
• The limited information available for the projects indicates that 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. Of the five mega-projects, only the South Ferry Terminal has progressed substantially in accordance with the schedule; three others are delayed by at least one year, and the Fulton Street Transit Center is currently set for completion in 2014, five years behind schedule…
• Many projects are completed close to the initial cost estimates, but cost estimates are problematic for some mega-projects, and some important signal and communication projects are seriously over budget. The cost of the Fulton Street Transit Center is nearly 90 percent above the initial estimate, and the South Ferry terminal is 24 percent above the initial estimate…Communication projects with large cost increases include Automatic Train Supervision (35 percent), customer information service on the Canarsie Line (55 percent), and computer-based train control on the Canarsie Line (51 percent).

The report highlights many of the projects I have followed over the last three years. In addition to the big-ticket items, the CBC notes that the roll-out of train information boards and an improved public address system along the A Division lines is now four years behind schedule. Even some new rolling stock orders were delayed by eight months.

To solve the problem, the CBC issued three recommendations:

• 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. The public should know how its money is being used. More information should be assembled centrally, it should be kept in a consistent format with clear milestones for assessing progress, and it should be made publicly available on the MTA’s website.
• The MTA should improve its capacity to manage mega-projects and improvements in signaling and communication systems. These are the areas of greatest delays and cost increases, and they account for large sums in the proposed five- year capital plan. New procedures and an expanded pool of personnel with relevant expertise are urgently needed within the agency.
• The next five-year plan should be based on a realistic assessment of what can be accomplished. At the end of the 2000-2004 plan fully 365 projects costing over $4.8 billion, or more than one-quarter of the total plan, had not reached the stage expected when the plan was approved. Much of the work undertaken during the 2005-2007 period examined was for projects in the previous five-year plan. It is likely that a similar proportion of the work included in the current 2005-2009 plan will have to be extended into future years. The new plan for 2010-2014 should be more realistic in anticipating the new work that can be accomplished and the funding needed to support it.

It’s almost surprising that it took the CBC two years to release this report. After all, a quick glance at the MTA’s website reveals that information is scare. For example, the page detailing construction progress for the 7 line extension hasn’t been updated since November 2008. That’s hardly informative.

For their part, the MTA said that they are working on the issues of transparency. “Today the MTA previewed an online dashboard that will provide the public with clear, updated information about all of the projects in the upcoming capital program,” MTA Spokesman Jeremy Soffin said.“For the first time, you’ll be able to search by project type, line or station to find out exactly where construction stands, why the work is necessary and whether it is on budget. The dashboard will be available online by the end of the year. We look forward to engaging with the Citizens Budget Commission and others in the ongoing public discussion on the MTA’s critical capital program.”

That dashboard would be a great step in the right direction for the MTA. There is but one question about it: Can the agency deliver it to the public on time?

Take the R or W north from Rector St. or south from City Hall, and as the train passes the midway point is slows to a crawl. Alert straphangers will glance out the windows and remember the Cortlandt St. station. Closed after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the station reopened in 2002 after extensive repairs.

In 2005, as part of the Fulton St. Transit Center project, the station was again shuttered. The MTA had to build the Dey Street Passageway, connecting Cortlandt St. with the rest of the Fulton St. complex, and at the time, signs promised a spring 2006 reopening. As we know, that date was but a pipe dream, and the MTA kept pushing back the reopening of this Lower Manhattan station.

Now, half of it is truly finally reopening soon. As the above picture — courtesy of New York City Transit (and click on it to enlarge) — shows, workers are heading down the home stretch of work on the northbound platform, and in December, the northbound side only will reopen with a connection to the rest of Fulton St.

Passengers on southbound BMT trains will have to wait, though, until at least September 2011 for the southbound platform to reopen. Due to that platform’s proximity to Port Authority work, the MTA has to coordinate with the PA to firm up a schedule and projected opening date. Half an open station is better than one fully closed station.

A close-up of the planned realignment of the uptown IRT platform at Bleecker St. (Courtesy of Lee Harris Pomeroy Architects. Click to enlarge.)

A long, long time ago — May 30, 2007, to be exact — I unveiled architectural renderings of a station connection decades in the making. That day, we explored Lee Harris Pomeroy Architects’ plans for a complete renovation of the Bleecker St./Broadway-Lafayette complex.

The overhaul includes a fully ADA-compliant station, but the real catch is a true connection between the 6 on the upper level and the IND stop on the lower level. For decades, this station provided a transfer point only for those coming from and going to the downtown 6 trains but not the uptown trains. The two IRT platforms were off-set by a good 300 feet, and a full transfer to the uptown trains was impossible.

Now, the MTA is overhauling the station. As part of the $94 million project set to wrap up in November 2011, the uptown IRT platform is being extended 300 feet south to line up with its downtown counterpart. The mezzanine above the IND stop at Broadway/Lafayette but below the IRT will be extended east to provide a full transfer, and elevators and escalators will provide all sorts of access.

The project commenced with little fanfare a few months ago, but this week, we’ve seen a flurry of Bleecker St.-related stories emerge. For the subway construction porn aficionados among us, LHP Architects has updated the project page with new renderings, and I’ll show a few at the end of this post.

On a more ground-level basis, Curbed has some stunning pictures of the state of the IRT tunnel as well. These photos — available here and here — show corroding bricks lining the walls to the 105-year-old tunnels. Curbed also notes plans to open a new station entrance in front of the Puck Building on Houston St. for the southern end of the uptown IRT platform.

Finally, of course, we arrive at the construction hiccups. Earlier this week, Heather Haddon reported on some unanticipated problems concerning the nearby Peace Pentagon. This bastion of liberal activism at the corner of Bleecker and Lafayette Sts. is apparently sinking, and the building has been surrounded by scaffolding since 2007. The perilous state of this building is preventing the MTA from embarking on some of the work on the project.

To further complicate things, the A.J. Muste Memorial Institute, the owners of the so-called Peace Pentagon, do not have the money to pay for the building upgrades, and everything remains in limbo. While Haddon reported that the MTA is looking into a solution, Transit officials assured me earlier this week that these problems would not delay completion of the station renovation. Paul Fleuranges, Transit spokesman, offered this update:

We are rescheduling this work to start in Jan. 2011 partially due to the scaffolding interference. Moving this work to 2011 will not delay the overall project completion. We have been in touch with the building owner and their lawyers to resolve the issue but have not received any report concerning the building’s condition. We are looking at options that would have our contractor modify the scaffolding to allow him to perform the work.

And that’s that. Exciting times for a station overhaul decades in the making.

After the jump, two additional glimpses into the station renovation. Click the images to enlarge.