Capital budget transparency refers to the public disclosure and clear reporting of how New York State and City agencies plan, fund, and execute long-term infrastructure projects. This page covers CBC’s work on MTA capital planning, lump sum appropriations, competitive bidding requirements, infrastructure needs assessments, and project oversight mechanisms.
This page was created with AICBC Insights uses AI to group, analyze and present data and recommendations from CBC's publications. Always reference the cited sources to verify important details..
The MTA should publish project plans, user-friendly capital project status reports, regular updates on each asset group’s state of repair, and a joint study on comparative capital project costs to ensure accountability and cost-effective capital delivery.
The State should require a study to identify any State or City laws or regulations that increase MTA capital costs to improve transparency and project delivery.
The MTA should publish an addendum—prior to the release of the capital program—that includes detailed estimates of the costs, benefits, and timelines, for all assets and investment needs in the categories of “Rebuild” and “Improve” the system, including those that bring assets to and keep the system in a state of good repair.
The MTA should include estimated costs over the next 5 and 20 years in the requested addendum, understanding that estimates far into the future will likely be less accurate.
The MTA should publish an addendum that includes robust cost and benefit estimates for projects to Rebuild and Improve the system before releasing the capital program.
This addendum should include the costs and impacts on services and long-run spending if those investments are fully, or only partially, made.
The MTA must prioritize keeping current assets in a state of good repair before expanding the system to prevent network failure.
The MTA should swiftly and wisely implement congestion pricing to support the current capital plan.
Key Data
In May 2024, the CBC noted that the MTA's Twenty-Year Needs Assessment omitted critical cost estimates, leaving the public without a clear understanding of whether bringing the transit system to an adequate condition would cost $40 billion, $80 billion, or more over five years.
In July 2022, the CBC reported that the fiscal year 2023 enacted budget included a late addition of $1.6 billion for capital projects not in the initial proposals, including $920 million in lump sums to be allocated behind closed doors without public evaluation.
In November 2019, the CBC testified that the MTA's 2020-2024 Capital Program lacked transparency, noting that while it included $5.1 billion for accessibility improvements at 70 subway stations, it failed to list the specific stations, project schedules, or individual station costs.
In February 2019, the CBC highlighted that tracking New York City's capital projects is difficult because they are funded across multiple budget lines, and the City's Capital Projects Dashboard only reports on current projects greater than $25 million and does not allow data to be downloaded.
In March 2018, the CBC reported that front-loading capital commitments led to a buildup of excess appropriations, noting that while the City planned to commit $17.1 billion in fiscal year 2017, the actual level of available appropriations was $30.6 billion.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority faces a $33.4 billion funding gap in its $68.4 billion 2025-2029 Capital Plan, necessitating a comprehensive strategy that includes increased state and city contributions, fare adjustments, and enhanced accountability measures. To ensure fiscal responsibility and public trust, the plan calls for greater transparency in project delivery, regular status reporting, and studies to identify cost drivers within capital projects.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The MTA should publish project plans, user-friendly capital project status reports, regular updates on each asset group’s state of repair, and a joint study on comparative capital project costs to ensure accountability and cost-effective capital delivery.
The State should require a study to identify any State or City laws or regulations that increase MTA capital costs to improve transparency and project delivery.
Key Data
$68.4 billion
— Size of the proposed 2025-2029 Capital Plan.
$33.4 billion
— Initial funding gap identified in the 2025-2029 Capital Plan.
$35.4 billion
— Financing gap after the State Fiscal Year 2026 Executive Budget lowered contributions.
$16.0 billion
— Remaining shortfall after proposed funding actions are implemented.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Twenty-Year Needs Assessment lacks the critical information required for a well-informed public discussion regarding essential capital investments and necessary tradeoffs. To ensure transparency and proper planning, the agency should publish an addendum detailing the costs, benefits, and timelines for all "Rebuild" and "Improve" projects over the next 5 and 20 years.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The MTA should publish an addendum—prior to the release of the capital program—that includes detailed estimates of the costs, benefits, and timelines, for all assets and investment needs in the categories of “Rebuild” and “Improve” the system, including those that bring assets to and keep the system in a state of good repair.
The MTA should include estimated costs over the next 5 and 20 years in the requested addendum, understanding that estimates far into the future will likely be less accurate.
Key Data
$40 billion
— The lower end of the estimated range of funding needed over the next five years to begin bringing the transit system to an adequate condition.
$80 billion
— The higher end of the estimated range of funding needed over the next five years to begin bringing the transit system to an adequate condition.
New York State agencies frequently bypass competitive bidding and oversight for billions of dollars in contracts through exemptions embedded in the enacted budget. Legislation A7404/S6941 would mandate the public disclosure of these exempt contracts to increase transparency and reduce the risk of wasteful or corrupt spending.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The Governor should sign A7404/S6941 to require State agencies and authorities to publish contracts that are exempt from prior approval by the Office of the State Comptroller.
The Governor should no longer include exemptions to sections 112 and 163 in executive budget bills.
The Governor should reject any exemptions proposed by the Legislature regarding State Finance Law.
Key Data
5 days
— The average time it takes for the Office of the State Comptroller to complete a prompt review of contracts.
$50,000
— The minimum contract value floor for which oversight provisions apply.
$12.8 billion
— The total value of 14 appropriations in the Executive Budget that exempt both sections 112 and 163 of State Finance Law.
$2.6 billion
— The total value of 17 appropriations exempt from section 163 of State Finance Law alone.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Twenty-Year Needs Assessment fails to provide necessary cost, timeline, and impact data for proposed projects, preventing informed public debate on investment priorities. To address this, the authority must publish an addendum detailing robust cost and benefit estimates for rebuilding and improving the system, particularly for the first five years.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The MTA should publish an addendum that includes robust cost and benefit estimates for projects to Rebuild and Improve the system before releasing the capital program.
This addendum should include the costs and impacts on services and long-run spending if those investments are fully, or only partially, made.
The MTA must prioritize keeping current assets in a state of good repair before expanding the system to prevent network failure.
The MTA should swiftly and wisely implement congestion pricing to support the current capital plan.
Key Data
$40 billion
— Hypothetical cost estimate for bringing the system to adequate condition over the next five years.
$80 billion
— Alternative hypothetical cost estimate for bringing the system to adequate condition over the next five years.
The MTA's Twenty-Year Needs Assessment for 2025-2044 fails to provide necessary cost estimates for infrastructure projects, preventing the public and policymakers from effectively prioritizing investments. An addendum is required that details the costs and benefits of proposed projects, as well as the potential service and financial impacts of only partially funding these needs.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The MTA should develop and publish a TYNA addendum that includes robust cost and benefit estimates for rebuilding and renewing the transit system.
The MTA should ensure the TYNA addendum includes cost and benefit estimates that are sufficiently disaggregated to allow for informed decision-making.
The MTA should identify what should be invested in the next 5 and 20 years to bring the system to a state of good repair and normal replacement cycle.
The MTA should identify the impacts on services and long-run costs if capital investments are only partially made.
Key Data
$20 billion
— The lower end of a hypothetical cost range for bringing the transit system to a state of good repair over the next five years.
$70 billion
— The higher end of a hypothetical cost range for bringing the transit system to a state of good repair over the next five years.
A coalition of organizations is urging the Governor to issue an executive order requiring state agencies to provide annual updates to their transparency plans, ensuring better public access to information and progress tracking. The request specifically calls for improved disclosure of discretionary and capital appropriations, as well as standardized reporting on Freedom of Information Law compliance and open data initiatives.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
Mandate via Executive Order annual transparency plan updates, which will be published online by the Governor’s office to identify specific actions agencies will undertake in the coming year and assess progress made on prior years’ plans.
Require annual transparency plan updates to include a checklist showing how well agencies comply with transparency mandates like the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) and the Open Data Executive Order 95 of 2013.
Publish the top three deliverables from each agency transparency plan and progress made to date, as pledged in the Executive Chamber transparency plan.
Improve a key commitment in the Executive Chamber plan by having the Division of the Budget (DOB) publish complete discretionary or “MOU” lump sum and capital appropriations including grants approved by DOB prior to September 2021, names of individual legislative sponsors, all items in the DASNY grants report, and addresses of grantees.
Publish the “public facing performance website” identified in the Division of the Budget’s transparency plan to inform lawmakers, administrators, and the public on the State’s progress toward providing services to meet New Yorkers’ needs.
New York State added $1.6 billion in capital projects to the fiscal year 2023 budget without prior proposal or rigorous evaluation, relying on opaque lump-sum appropriations. These practices undermine sound budgeting by bypassing public scrutiny and potentially misallocating resources, necessitating a shift toward a more transparent, holistic capital planning process.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The State should utilize a comprehensive capital planning process that follows five general steps of strategic planning, needs assessment, resource identification, plan development, and implementation.
The Governor and Legislature should stop using lump sum appropriations for capital projects or otherwise to avoid ad hoc spending with limited oversight.
The Executive should provide transparency on disbursements of existing lump sum pots by reporting details of spending, including the timing, amount, recipient, and purpose of awards.
Key Data
$1.6 billion
— Total amount of capital appropriations added to the fiscal year 2023 enacted budget that were not included in prior proposals.
$920 million
— Amount of capital appropriations added to the budget in the form of lump sums.
$656 million
— Amount of capital appropriations added to the budget for specific projects.
$418 million
— Portion of the Buffalo Bills Stadium funding that will be paid for with current money.
$1.2 billion
— Maximum amount of the newly added capital projects that may be financed through bonds, consuming State debt capacity.
New York State's budget includes billions of dollars in opaque lump sum appropriations that allow for unilateral spending decisions without public notice or oversight. These funds, which include billions for emergency response and specific investment funds, create significant corruption risks and should be replaced by specifically itemized spending and greater transparency measures.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
Vastly reduce the total size of lump sum appropriations in the budget and instead specifically itemize planned spending.
Any remaining lump sum pots included in the budget should be limited in scope, subject to Comptroller review, and publicly disclosed after they are itemized in an open data format.
Avoid using lump sum pots in the state budget—while we understand the desire to have some budgetary flexibility, there should be clear limitations on the use of lump sum funds, and full disclosure of what they fund.
Fully disclose all details of past and future lump sum pots, as promised in your Executive Chamber and Division of the Budget October 2021 Transparency Plans, by releasing the plans in an open data format that includes recipients of funds and legislative sponsors.
Support and sign into law A7925-A / S6809-A to restore many of the Comptroller’s powers to review state contracts before they are signed.
Key Data
$350 million
— The amount allocated to the 'Long Island Investment Fund,' which is an example of a broadly defined pot planned for currently unidentified purposes.
$8 billion
— The amount in special emergency appropriations, which are examples of broad pots ostensibly for emergency response purposes.
$8 billion
— The amount in lump sum funds approved in the state operations budget alone in the final FY 2023 budget.
$6 billion
— The portion of the FY 2023 state operations budget allocated to a 'public health emergency' pot that is exempt from Comptroller review.
$2 billion
— The portion of the FY 2023 state operations budget allocated to a 'special emergency' pot that is solely for transfer by the governor and exempt from Comptroller review.
New York State should enact legislation requiring the Department of Transportation to file comprehensive annual reports on planned projects, capital obligations, infrastructure conditions, and public transportation needs. This improved transparency would replace current, opaque planning methods with a process that allows the public to assess performance metrics and long-term infrastructure goals.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The Governor should sign S199B/A4010B to improve capital planning and reporting for transportation infrastructure in New York State.
The State should add long-term, intermodal planning provisions to the transportation capital planning process through subsequent legislation.
If the bill is vetoed due to cost, the State should include its provisions, along with additional provisions for long-term, intermodal planning, in the fiscal year 2023 budget.
Key Data
$1 million
— Estimated unfunded cost of the 2019 bill (A4880/S1673) that was vetoed by the governor.
The next New York City Comptroller will play a critical role not only in holding the next Administration and agencies accountable, investing and managing five pension funds with $248 billion in assets, and partnering in $13 billion City debt issuance, but also in spotlighting and promoting New York City’s fiscal…
CBC hosted a special panel discussion of prominent fiscal experts who helped New York overcome some of the most dire crises of the past. They provided insights and lessons from past experiences to help us understand and navigate the looming crisis. Stephen Berger Chairman, Odyssey Investment Partners; Former Executive Director,…
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority's 2020-2024 capital plan lacks the necessary transparency and scheduling details to determine which projects will actually be completed, making it impossible to assess the impact on rider experience. To ensure accountability and effective resource allocation, the authority must provide a clear, prioritized five-year investment blueprint that includes specific project timelines.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The MTA should allocate its human and financial resources to the highest priority projects, and its capital plan documents should reflect these priorities by including, at minimum, the year in which the MTA plans to commit and complete each project to provide a transparent blueprint for capital investment.
The MTA should provide the detail needed and present a five-year plan for investment so the MTA Board, oversight bodies, and the public can assess whether the capital plan is appropriate and hold the MTA accountable.
The MTA should prioritize the most impactful projects and initiate those as soon as practicable to address the lack of transparency and scheduling in the capital program.
The MTA and other public officials must ensure that exemptions and credits to the central business district tolling charge are limited, so that the revenue promised is available to support the capital plan's financing transparency.
Rather than using volatile real estate transfer taxes to support debt, the MTA should consider this a source for pay-as-you-go capital projects.
Key Data
$54.8 billion
— The size of the proposed 2020-2024 Capital Program.
$70 billion
— The total value of projects planned, including the new capital program and existing backlog.
$15 billion
— Previously planned and approved capital projects that have yet to be committed.
$6 billion
— The average annual capital project commitment from 2010 to 2018.
$14 billion
— The annual projected commitment rate required to execute both the new capital plan and the backlog of projects in five years.
$1 billion
— The estimated annual revenue from central business district tolling.
New York State should enact legislation requiring the Department of Transportation to create long-term capital plans, hold public hearings, and provide transparent reporting on project delays and costs. These reforms are necessary to move away from politically driven budgeting and improve the condition of the state's transportation infrastructure.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The Governor should sign A4880/S1673 to improve capital planning for transportation infrastructure in New York State.
The State Department of Transportation should develop a 20-year intermodal transportation capital plan.
The State Department of Transportation should develop a 5-year capital plan for transportation projects.
The State Department of Transportation should hold regional hearings on transportation capital planning.
The State Department of Transportation should biannually submit to the Governor and Legislature a list of current and planned transportation capital projects.
The State Department of Transportation should provide explanations of major delays and cost overruns on individual projects.
Subsequent legislation should require the Department of Transportation to outline goals and strategies for maintaining and improving transportation assets.
Subsequent legislation should make public a summary of the inventory of assets, asset quality, recently completed projects, and performance relative to predetermined goals.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority's proposed $51.5 billion capital plan lacks a public comprehensive needs assessment and relies on $6 billion in unauthorized funding commitments from the state and city. Furthermore, the plan is 70 percent larger than the previous iteration, raising significant concerns about the agency's ability to finance the debt and accelerate project execution to meet these ambitious goals.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The MTA should make public a comprehensive needs assessment to ensure the plan is spending money on the right things.
The MTA should clarify how it will finance $9.8 billion in bonds and pay-as-you-go capital given its projected operating deficits.
The MTA should secure authorized commitments from New York State and New York City for the $6 billion in assumed funding.
The MTA should demonstrate how it will accelerate the pace to execute projects to fully implement a plan that is 70 percent greater than the previous one.
Key Data
$51.5 billion
— Total investment in the region’s mass transit network proposed by the MTA.
$3 billion
— Funding assumed from New York State that has not yet been authorized.
$3 billion
— Funding assumed from New York City that has not yet been authorized.
$9.8 billion
— Amount in bonds and pay-as-you-go capital that the MTA must finance.
70 percent
— The amount by which the proposed plan exceeds the MTA’s 2015-2019 capital plan.
65 percent
— The portion of the 2015-2019 capital plan committed by the MTA as of June 2019.
A coalition of 18 organizations is calling for greater transparency regarding MTA capital funds, specifically requesting that the State Legislature and the MTA publish open data on 'set-aside' funds and the $50 million annual Outer Borough Transit Account. These projects, which are intended to improve mass transit and serve underserved communities, should be disclosed to the public to ensure accountability and evaluation of need.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The State Legislature should publish a list of funds “set-aside” for the State Legislature from the forthcoming 2020-2024 Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Capital Program in an open data format on their websites.
The MTA or Capital Program Review Board (CPRB) should publish a list of funds being distributed from the Outer Borough Transit Account in an open data format, or the State Legislature should do so if they fail to.
Disclosures for transit funds should include detailed information regarding the project or program, such as the purpose, location, requesting member, responsible agency, total amount, and relevant dates, provided in CSV or equivalent formats.
The Capital Program Review Board (CPRB) should conduct the approval of the designation of Outer Borough Transit Funds publicly in an open meeting, as required by the Open Meetings Law.
Key Data
$50 million
— The annual funding amount for the Outer Borough Transit Account.
18
— The number of organizations that signed the letter requesting increased transparency for transit funds.
2020-2024
— The period covered by the forthcoming Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Capital Program for which transparency is requested.
The proposal advocates for restructuring the Borough Presidents' role in the capital budget by eliminating specific set-asides and amending charter sections related to capital allocations and topographical bureaus. It argues that existing charter provisions already provide sufficient authority for Borough Presidents to identify needs and advise on capital projects without these specific budgetary mandates.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The Commission should eliminate § 211 of the Charter, which sets aside 5 percent of the capital appropriations over which the City has substantial discretion for the five Borough Presidents.
The Commission should eliminate § 102-a of the Charter, which requires the City’s expense budget to dedicate nine-tenths of 1 percent of the cost of Borough Presidents’ capital projects to their maintenance.
The Commission should amend § 216 and § 249 of the Charter, as they refer to the capital budget borough allocation.
The Commission should amend § 82 of the Charter, which requires Borough Presidents to maintain topographical bureaus to assist with capital projects, as such offices may not be necessary absent the capital budget borough allocation.
Key Data
5 percent
— The portion of capital appropriations over which the City has substantial discretion that is currently set aside for the five Borough Presidents.
nine-tenths of 1 percent
— The portion of the cost of Borough Presidents’ capital projects that the City’s expense budget is currently required to dedicate to maintenance.
Intro. No. 113 proposes an online database for pending construction projects to improve transparency and oversight of the city's multi-billion dollar capital investments. Enhancing this proposal by including budget line data and historical project records would allow for better public scrutiny of the city's significant annual capital commitments.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
Intro. No. 113 would require the City of New York to produce an online database of all pending construction projects that includes initial and current completion dates and costs.
The City should consider expanding the existing Capital Projects Dashboard because it would leverage an existing platform that already includes more data elements than would be required under Intro. No. 113.
The database should require inclusion of each project’s associated capital budget lines and project ID codes to allow the database to be linked to budget documents.
The database should retain data on completed projects to allow for retrospective assessment of performance.
The capital budget should be subject to the same monitoring and scrutiny as the operating budget.
Key Data
$7.4 billion
— City capital commitments in fiscal year 2014
$11.8 billion
— City capital commitments in fiscal year 2018
$83.8 billion
— Forecasted capital commitments from fiscal years 2019 through 2023
$25 million
— Threshold for current capital projects included in the existing Capital Projects Dashboard
$10 billion
— Annual capital commitments made by the City
The Metropolitan Transportation Sustainability Advisory Workgroup Report, which concluded after a 16-week lifespan, highlights significant fiscal and managerial challenges facing the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. To address these issues, the report advocates for independent audits of capital costs and procurement reforms to improve transparency and cost containment.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The MTA should conduct an independent audit of capital costs and state of good repair needs to improve transparency.
The MTA should implement procurement reforms to improve cost containment and transparency.
New York State's infrastructure planning lacks a coordinated, transparent approach, with many projects funded outside of normal capital planning processes and without clear, uniform criteria for prioritization. Establishing a centralized office to manage infrastructure planning and provide a single, transparent clearinghouse for project data and metrics is essential to improve accountability and long-term investment strategy.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The state should establish an Office of Infrastructure to lead statewide infrastructure planning and institutionalize long-term, cross-agency coordination.
The Office of Infrastructure should articulate a set of criteria to prioritize infrastructure investment that is aligned with statewide policy objectives and needs.
The Office of Infrastructure should serve as a clearinghouse for project transparency and reporting by providing a single access point for capital infrastructure projects statewide.
The Office of Infrastructure should create a Center of Excellence for state infrastructure investment to tackle systemic cost drivers and recommend the most appropriate project delivery methods.
New York should pursue alternate funding sources, such as congestion pricing and value capture, to appropriately fund the state's infrastructure needs.
Key Data
$100 billion
— The amount of new investment required to meet the state’s infrastructure needs.
$14.6 billion
— Total state capital infrastructure investment in FY 2019.
$16.8 billion
— The amount New York State spent on transportation, utilities, and water and waste management in 2018.
$6.3 billion
— The annual cost to the state caused by rough roads and congestion.
$40 billion
— The estimated cost of the MTA's Fast Forward Plan.
$21 billion
— The total amount a proposed Resiliency Finance Corporation could raise over 20 years.
The $79 billion Preliminary Capital Commitment Plan for Fiscal Years 2018 to 2022 suffers from unrealistic ambitions and a lack of transparency that obscures capital priorities. To improve accountability, the city should implement discrete project codes, publish actual spending data by project, and incorporate performance metrics into the capital budget.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The City should require the use of discrete project codes to replace lump sum codes that offer little transparency into how and where agencies plan to commit funds.
The City should make actual spending on capital projects public to facilitate oversight and accountability by allowing observers to monitor the progress and total cost of individual projects.
The City should add performance metrics to the capital plan to allow the City Council and other observers to measure the efficiency and effectiveness of capital investment.
The City should improve the city’s needs assessment by ensuring the Asset Management Information System captures the full universe of city assets and aligns with the capital plan.
The City should incorporate life-cycle cost analysis into the capital planning process to account for the cost of operating, maintaining, and ultimately replacing capital assets.
Key Data
$79 billion
— The Preliminary Capital Commitment Plan for Fiscal Years 2018 to 2022, which remains unrealistic in its ambition and obscures capital priorities.
New York City's capital commitment plan is consistently front-loaded and overly ambitious, leading to a buildup of excess appropriations and a lack of transparency regarding actual project timelines. To improve oversight and accuracy, the city must align its capital plan with realistic agency capacity and clearly articulate its immediate priorities.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The City should reduce the size of the capital commitment plan to force agencies to identify their capital priorities.
The commitment plan should reflect what agencies can reasonably commit and manage in a given year.
Reducing the size of the plan will prevent the buildup of excess appropriations and allow for better oversight of capital expenditures.
Eliminating the front-loading of planned commitments will allow for more accurate timing of future commitments.
The City must clearly articulate its capital priorities and immediate needs to facilitate improved tracking of capital projects.
Key Data
$69.6 billion
— Total capital commitments called for in the 2019 plan from fiscal year 2018 through fiscal year 2021.
$15.7 billion
— The commitment target for 2018 in the current Preliminary Capital Commitment Plan.
$30.6 billion
— The level of available appropriations in fiscal year 2017.
$6.0 billion
— The reserve for unattained commitments in the 2018 plan.
$10.9 billion
— Actual commitments made during the fiscal year when the City projected $20.0 billion in capital funding.
$3.2 billion
— Amount of prior appropriations rescinded in the Fiscal Year 2018 Executive Budget Capital Commitment Plan.
New York City's capital planning process lacks a comprehensive, transparent system for assessing asset needs and prioritizing projects, leading to ad-hoc decision-making and insufficient maintenance. To improve long-term infrastructure management, the city should implement clear, standardized guidelines for asset maintenance, establish a transparent investment standard, and adopt a 'fix it first' strategy for capital projects.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The next administration should enact clear guidelines or directives for performing routine maintenance and regular replacement of assets to prevent the state of good repair backlog from growing.
All city agencies and component units should undertake a comprehensive needs assessment that details the condition of major asset classes and the cost to fix those in disrepair.
The city should use the needs assessment to develop a plan to achieve state of good repair, including a detailed timeline with four-year and ten-year goals.
The next administration should articulate a standard for keeping debt from becoming unaffordable to reduce the city's high debt burden.
The city should adopt a 'fix it first' strategy, in which state of good repair projects receive priority at each agency.
Key Data
$87.7 billion
— The total value of assets owned by New York City and its related public authorities as of fiscal year 2013, representing a 79% increase since fiscal year 2002.
$100 billion
— The amount of City-related debt outstanding, which has grown 80% since fiscal year 2002.
$366,142,000
— The total reported maintenance need for city agencies in fiscal year 2014, of which only 66% was funded.
$750,000
— The average cost of a design change order for capital projects.
$130 million
— The total value of design change orders in fiscal year 2013, constituting almost 20% of original contract values.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority lacks a transparent, comprehensive assessment of its infrastructure's condition and the true costs required to achieve a state of good repair, which hinders informed funding decisions. To address this, the state should mandate that the agency produce and regularly update an Asset Information Management System report, similar to the one required for New York City agencies.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The governor's agenda for the coming legislative session should include mandating that an AIMS report be prepared and regularly updated by the MTA.
A full accounting of the mass transit system's condition and the costs needed to achieve a full state of good repair should be made and made public.
The debate over funding should be fully informed by an understanding of the infrastructure’s current condition and the true cost of fixing it.
New York State's transportation capital planning process lacks transparency and objective criteria, often relying on negotiated agreements rather than data-driven needs assessments. To improve accountability, the State should codify a formal, multi-step planning process that includes clear goals, needs assessments, and detailed, publicly accessible project lists.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
State officials should codify in statute a process to formally set forth appropriate capital planning procedures for DOT assets.
The State should produce an update of the DOT’s capital program’s strategies and goals to outline the system's vision and priorities.
The State should conduct a needs assessment highlighting the condition of the assets and the projected costs associated with maintaining them.
The State should publish a proposed project list with funding identified to accompany the Governor’s proposed budget.
The State should publish an enacted capital plan and project list for DOT projects including all costs contained in the State’s enacted Financial Plan.
The DOT should reproduce its list of projects annually to enable the Legislature, relevant stakeholders, and the public to track projects.
The State should issue a status report on projects included in the enacted five-year capital plan to compare progress relative to original goals.
Key Data
$21 billion
— Total funding available for the 2016 through 2020 capital program.
$6.5 billion
— Amount of funding left out of project lists entirely in the 2016-2020 capital program.
$3 billion
— Amount of funding allocated ambiguously to "statewide" projects in the 2016-2020 capital program.
$4.9 billion
— Annual disbursements for DOT capital expenses, representing 36 percent of projected capital spending by New York State agencies.
$130 million
— Additional capital funding added in the fiscal year 2018 budget for projects outlined by legislative leaders.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority's revised capital plan prioritizes expansion projects over essential maintenance, despite a 10 percent increase in funding that fails to address critical service reliability needs. Future capital planning requires greater transparency and a shift in focus toward state-of-good-repair projects to ensure the transit system functions effectively for riders.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The board should require more transparency of changes to the capital program to ensure public oversight.
The agency should emphasize what can be accomplished if capital funds are spent on state of good repair projects, existing system improvements, or both.
Future amendments should reprioritize funds for more appropriate state of good repair work and for the modernization of the subway’s aging signal system.
Board members and the public must remain engaged in the MTA’s capital planning process to ensure the region does not squander opportunities to reinvest.
Key Data
$29.5 billion
— Total value of the current five-year capital plan following the addition of $2.8 billion in investments.
10 percent
— Amount by which the comprehensive amendment increased the size of the capital plan subject to CPRB review above the originally-approved $26.6 billion.
$20 billion
— Estimated size of the continuing needs for New York City Transit in 2017 dollars.
$2 billion
— New capital commitments added for the Long Island Rail Road Expansion Project.
$700 million
— New capital commitments added for Phase II of the Second Avenue Subway.
60 percent
— Portion of continuing capital needs funded for signal malfunctions, rolling stock breakdowns, and power failures during the 2015-2019 period.
New York City's Ten-Year Capital Strategy lacks the necessary transparency and programmatic indicators to effectively track progress or hold city leaders accountable for infrastructure investments. The current plan relies on unrealistic timelines and fails to clearly link capital spending to documented infrastructure needs, risking underinvestment and inefficient resource allocation.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The City should adjust its strategy to acknowledge more appropriate commitment levels at the end of the ten-year period rather than smoothing commitments into future years.
The City should clearly relate the Ten-Year Capital Strategy back to statements of needs so that the City and the public can determine whether or not planned capital investment is adequate.
The Administration should incorporate a more realistic allocation of capital commitments over the first four years in future capital strategies to avoid chronic frontloading.
The City should include programmatic indicators to set goals for the Ten-Year Strategy to improve accountability when monitoring the City’s work.
The City should improve the Asset Information Management System (AIMS) to include assets owned by City-related public authorities to provide a more comprehensive assessment of capital needs.
Key Data
$95.8 billion
— The total planned commitments in the Executive Ten-Year Capital Strategy for Fiscal Years 2018–2027.
$51 billion
— The amount of planned commitments dedicated to keeping assets in a state of good repair.
$20.7 billion
— The amount the City expects to commit in fiscal year 2018.
$1.9 billion
— The additional funding included in the April Executive Strategy to increase the subsidy of 10,000 housing units.
$808 million
— The additional amount the City will commit to energy efficiency and sustainability retrofits.
$5.3 billion
— The current level of AIMS needs funding, which has grown 152 percent since fiscal year 2005.
New York City's capital construction process for libraries and cultural institutions is plagued by excessive delays and high costs, with projects often taking years to complete and costing significantly more than private-sector equivalents. The current system lacks transparency and accountability, relying on inefficient, multi-agency oversight and a piecemeal funding approach that hinders long-term planning and effective project management.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The mayor should convene a task force to review and reform the capital construction process to identify and mitigate current inefficiencies.
The city should leverage its existing Capital Projects Dashboard and expand it to systematically track the real costs and timelines of all capital construction projects.
The city should streamline project approval practices and reduce redundancies between OMB and DDC to prevent repeated stops and starts.
DDC should work with other relevant departments to simplify the design review process and establish achievable timetables for feedback and approval.
The city should fund an expanded agency-wide data and analytics team within DDC to analyze cost trends and predict potential overruns.
The city should institute a process for nonprofits to prequalify for discretionary capital funds to ensure they have the capacity to manage major initiatives.
The city council should adopt and fund a fixed five-year capital program to establish dependable funding for routine state-of-good-repair investments.
OMB should create a handbook providing an easy-to-understand summary of all capital eligibility rules and requirements to improve transparency.
The city should escalate its efforts to allow appropriate capital projects to be contracted through a design-build process to reduce delays and control costs.
The city should expand the use of pass-through project management for libraries and large cultural organizations to reduce the burden on city agencies.
Key Data
$930
— The median cost per square foot for new library and cultural buildings in the sample.
1,550
— The median number of days it took for a project to be completed.
$1,272
— The average cost per square foot for ground-up construction projects when managed by the city.
$641
— The average cost per square foot for ground-up construction projects when managed by the New York Public Library.
36%
— The share of projects that took more than five years to complete.
328
— The average number of days it took for the Office of Management and Budget to approve Certificates to Proceed and amendments for the average project.
The Port Authority's $32 billion capital plan lacks transparency and clear prioritization, failing to provide a public needs assessment or benefit-to-cost analyses for major projects. This approach results in a $3.9 billion shortfall in state-of-good-repair funding and allows political considerations like bi-state parity to influence project selection over regional needs.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
Develop a publicly-available needs assessment that identifies spending necessary to bring facilities to a state of good repair.
Establish a set of criteria for selecting enhancement and expansion projects that includes benefit-to-cost analyses.
Discard the use of bi-state parity to allocate capital resources between “New Jersey” projects and “New York” projects.
Key Data
$32 billion
— Total value of the 10-year capital plan.
$3.9 billion
— Estimated shortfall in state-of-good-repair funding.
$10 billion
— Expected total cost of the Bus Terminal replacement.
30%
— Estimated percentage shortfall in state-of-good-repair funding.
$377 million
— Amount added to the capital program to rehabilitate the current, obsolete Newark AirTrain.
The Preliminary Ten-Year Capital Strategy requires revision to offer greater transparency regarding the needs and expected outcomes of proposed capital investments. Additionally, the New York City Housing Authority faces $17 billion in unmet capital needs, which highlights the importance of clear capital planning.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The City should revise the Preliminary Ten-Year Capital Strategy to provide improved information on the needs and expected outcomes of proposed investments.
Key Data
$17 billion
— Unmet capital needs for the New York City Housing Authority.
New York City's outstanding debt has grown significantly, yet the proposed Ten-Year Capital Strategy lacks the necessary transparency, needs assessments, and performance metrics to justify the spending. Without a comprehensive source describing asset conditions or clear project milestones, it is impossible to determine if these investments are worthwhile or if they will effectively address the city's infrastructure needs.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The City should provide the information needed to judge whether planned capital investments are worthwhile.
The Ten-Year Capital Strategy should be directly linked to a needs assessment to track progress toward achieving a state of good repair.
The City should create a single comprehensive source that describes all the City's assets and their condition to address the current lack of transparency.
The City should provide performance metrics and timelines with milestones for all spending plans to ensure accountability.
Proposed capital spending should be limited to clearly defined projects with demonstrable benefits.
Key Data
$110 billion
— New York City's outstanding debt as of June 30, 2014.
96 percent
— Growth of New York City's outstanding debt since 2002.
$83.8 billion
— Total value of the proposed Ten-Year Capital Strategy for Fiscal Years 2016-2025.
30 percent
— Projected increase in debt service paid from the operating budget.
1 out of every 8 dollars
— Portion of tax revenue dedicated to debt service costs.
New York City's $83.8 billion Ten-Year Capital Strategy lacks sufficient transparency, failing to link investments to specific needs assessments or provide performance metrics for major spending initiatives. Furthermore, the city's reliance on borrowing to fund these projects has resulted in over $100 billion in debt, with debt service costs projected to grow significantly by fiscal year 2019.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The Strategy should incorporate information from those assessments and clearly spell out how much of state of good repair needs will be addressed by the proposed investments, and how quickly.
Specificity is necessary before dollars are appropriated.
The Council should require improved reporting on the rationale for and performance goals of capital spending and should limit the capital budget to clearly defined projects with demonstrable benefits.
Operating costs or savings should be considered and incorporated in the operating budget.
Key Data
$83.8 billion
— Total value of the Ten-Year Capital Strategy for Fiscal Years 2016 to 2025.
$100 billion
— Amount of debt outstanding for the City.
$7.7 billion
— Projected annual debt service by fiscal year 2019.
41 percent
— Growth in debt service since fiscal year 2005.
40 percent
— Projected growth in debt service by fiscal year 2019.
17 percent
— Projected growth of all other city operating expenditures in the same time period.
The City's Ten-Year Capital Strategy requires greater transparency regarding its financing plan, debt affordability, and integration with OneNYC infrastructure goals. To properly evaluate the plan, the administration must provide specific per-unit cost data, performance targets, and a clear timeline for addressing the state of good repair for city assets.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The City should clarify how much more debt will be issued and what benchmarks will be used to determine affordability of the Ten-Year Capital Strategy.
Each agency should describe how its capital spending plans advance the goals of OneNYC, and funding for specific OneNYC infrastructure initiatives should be clearly identified.
Agency plans should be accompanied by information on per-unit costs and performance targets to allow for the assessment of priorities and performance.
The Strategy should incorporate information from asset assessments and clearly spell out how much of state of good repair needs will be addressed by the proposed investments, and how quickly.
Key Data
$67.7 billion
— Total capital commitments in the preliminary version of the Ten-Year Capital Strategy presented in February.
$14 billion
— Amount by which the Preliminary Strategy was greater than the last ten-year plan developed in the Bloomberg administration.
8 percent
— Current level of debt supported directly by City tax dollars as a percentage of real property values.
5 percent
— Affordability benchmark for debt supported directly by City tax dollars as a percentage of real property values.
$100 billion
— Amount of debt outstanding that the City has already surpassed.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority has historically faced significant challenges with capital project transparency, leading to the creation of a web-based dashboard to track project status and costs. Despite these improvements, the agency continues to rely heavily on borrowing for capital investments, which exacerbates its long-term debt burden and complicates efforts to maintain a state of good repair.
Key Data
$79.8 Billion
— Total amount authorized for **capital investments** from 1982 through 2009.
$24.2 Billion
— The amended **capital plan** for 2010-2014, reduced from the original $26.3 billion.
$16.8 Billion
— Total investment in five **megaprojects** that experienced significant cost overruns.
The MTA's $32 billion capital plan faces a $15 billion funding gap and criticism for lacking transparency regarding project prioritization and infrastructure repair. To address this, the agency should adopt a "25-50-25" funding model that balances tax subsidies, user fees, and cross-subsidies from motorists while prioritizing better planning for network expansions.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
Better planning and greater transparency should precede investments in new expansions.
MTA leaders should demonstrate why specific expansion projects rank ahead of others to ensure capital funds are used effectively.
The MTA should adopt a '25-50-25' approach for funding the capital program, balancing tax subsidies, user fees, and cross-subsidies.
The MTA should implement modest fare increases to bring revenue closer to the 50 percent target.
The MTA should increase the motor vehicle users’ cross-subsidy to reach its 25 percent target.
Key Data
$32 billion
— Total investment amount called for in the MTA's early version of the 2015-2019 capital plan.
$15 billion
— The funding gap identified in the MTA's capital plan that requires new revenue sources.
$5.5 billion
— Amount allocated in the proposed plan to projects that would expand the network.
$2.6 billion
— Cost overruns on the East Side Access project included in the proposed capital plan.
$1.6 billion
— The annual increase in funding from the payroll mobility tax authorized in 2009.
$2.75
— The projected single-ride subway fare by 2016 as estimated in a 2012 study.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority's 2015-2019 capital plan lacks transparency regarding funding sources and fails to establish clear, evidence-based criteria for prioritizing expansion projects over essential infrastructure repairs. Consequently, the plan should be revised to postpone new commitments until a more rigorous planning process is implemented to ensure fiscal responsibility and effective project management.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The MTA should establish explicit criteria for selecting priority projects and consider evidence regarding how well potential investments meet these criteria.
The MTA should postpone commitment to new expansion projects until an improved planning process is established and used to assess multiple potential projects.
Better planning and greater transparency should precede investments in system expansions.
The MTA should rethink the management of large-scale projects, especially those for expansion and signal improvements, to promote more effective implementation.
The MTA should embrace a more ambitious schedule for Communications-Based Train Control (CBTC) and provide the necessary funding in the 2015-2019 plan.
Key Data
$32 billion
— The total investment amount called for in the MTA's 2015-2019 capital plan.
$15.2 billion
— The amount of the MTA's 2015-2019 capital plan that remains unfunded.
$5.4 billion
— The total shortfall between the identified needs assessment and the Board-approved plan.
$10.8 billion
— The current estimated cost of the East Side Access project, which was originally approved in 2000 at a cost of $6.3 billion.
$743 million
— The amount committed to the Penn Station Access project, which lacks quantified benefits and a reported total cost.
This discussion took place as part of the CBC's Conference, The Most Important Economic and Fiscal Decisions Facing the Next Mayor, held on December 6, 2013 in New York City. Presenter: Maria Doulis Moderator: Anita Laremont Panelists: Rohit Aggarwala, Denise Richardson, Marcia Van Wagner, and Christopher Ward
New York City's capital planning process lacks transparent criteria for project selection and comprehensive data on asset conditions, leading to inefficient spending and a growing maintenance backlog. The next administration should implement clear guidelines for asset management, adopt a "fix it first" investment strategy, and improve the transparency of capital project prioritization to ensure long-term infrastructure health.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The next administration should enact clear guidelines or directives for performing routine maintenance and regular replacement of assets to prevent the state of good repair backlog from growing.
All city agencies and component units should undertake a comprehensive needs assessment that details the condition of major asset classes and the cost to fix those in disrepair.
The City should adopt a “fix it first” strategy, in which state of good repair projects receive priority at each agency.
The next administration should articulate a standard for keeping debt from becoming unaffordable by defining an investment policy that includes standards for debt and pay-as-you-go capital.
The City should publish easy-to-read progress reports that describe what the capital program accomplished in that year relative to state of good repair goals.
City leaders should advocate for a repeal of Wicks Law and an expansion of the city’s toolbox for effective contracting to improve construction management.
The City should renew its Project Labor Agreements to reduce labor costs and improve managerial flexibility.
Key Data
$6.4 billion
— State of good repair requirements as reported in the Asset Information Management System in fiscal year 2014.
41%
— The low point of the share of state of good repair needs funded in 2004.
$468
— The construction bid price per square foot for school capacity projects in fiscal year 2008.
$130 million
— The total value of design change orders in fiscal year 2013.
$50.5 billion
— The value of capital assets owned directly by the City in fiscal year 2013.
New York State's first 10-year, $174 billion capital plan is a significant step toward consolidating infrastructure planning, but it requires greater transparency regarding asset conditions, financing affordability, and project-level tracking. To improve accountability and effectiveness, the state must better align planned spending with actual infrastructure needs and provide clearer data on how these massive investments will be financed and monitored.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The state should provide better information about asset condition and the match-up between planned levels of state of good repair (SOGR) spending and need.
The state should develop an improved financing plan that addresses the issue of affordability for capital projects.
The state should provide better project-level data to facilitate project tracking and assessment.
The state should classify assets as major or minor according to criteria that include the dollar value of the asset and a priority score to help prioritize SOGR in the capital planning process.
The state should set condition improvement targets and provide estimates of the cost of achieving the desired improvement for assets where SOGR may be unattainable.
Key Data
$174 billion
— Total planned investment commitments across eight broad sectors in the 10-year statewide capital plan.
$117.8 billion
— Amount allocated for State of Good Repair (SOGR) projects, representing 67.5 percent of the total plan.
$180.3 billion
— Total debt outstanding for the agencies and authorities included in the plan for fiscal years ending in 2011-12.
$641 million
— Projected amount that debt outstanding will be below the debt limit by fiscal year 2016-17.
$12.1 billion
— Total maintenance spending reported by New York State from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2012.
$10.7 billion
— Estimated maintenance need for New York State assets from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2012.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey should adopt more transparent budget practices, including a long-term capital strategy and regular reporting on project status. Implementing these measures would improve public accountability and ensure better alignment between infrastructure investments and regional needs.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The PANYNJ’s capital budgeting should be guided by a long-term (a period of 10 to 20 years) capital strategy that is revised every four years.
The capital budget should include an annual and a four-year commitment plan revised annually.
Regular and frequent (quarterly) reports should be made to the Board and the public on the status of each capital project relative to the scheduled milestones and planned costs for the project.
Major capital projects should be monitored by independent engineering consultants with reports to the board, and their reports available to the public.
The PANYNJ should have a detailed annual operating budget and a four-year financial plan.
New York City's economic development reporting fails to capture the full scope of public spending, particularly by excluding state and federal assistance and city capital commitments from cost-benefit analyses. To improve accountability, the city should incorporate debt service for capital projects into these analyses and finally convene the methodology recommendation committee required by law.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The Economic Development Corporation should include in its cost-benefit analysis the debt service associated with project-related capital commitments, in the same way it includes the costs of PILOTs, sales tax exemptions, and other incentives.
The methodology recommendation committee, jointly selected by the Mayor and the City Council Speaker, should be appointed and convened to discuss these changes and other relevant adjustments to reporting measures.
Key Data
$125 million
— Total incentive package provided to FreshDirect for its relocation and expansion into the Harlem River Yards.
$1.4 billion
— Total assistance provided to more than 620 development projects over their lifespans as of 2011.
$265 million
— Average annual capital commitments made by the Economic Development Corporation over the past decade.
$73 million
— Total assistance awarded to development projects in fiscal year 2011.
$71.5 million
— Portion of the FreshDirect incentive package included in the cost-benefit analysis.
$16.4 million
— Total value of excluded funding sources, such as EDC loans and city capital grants, from the FreshDirect incentive package reporting.
New York City's current definition of a balanced budget is misleading because it excludes significant long-term liabilities like depreciation and retiree health benefits, allowing the city to mask deficits. To ensure current residents do not unfairly burden future generations, the city should adopt more comprehensive accounting standards that accurately reflect its true financial condition.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
New Yorkers should be giving much more attention to the financial results disclosed under the new GAAP rules to better understand the city's true fiscal health.
Municipal leaders should adopt a more meaningful standard for a balanced budget that moves away from the current self-deluding framework.
New York City should eliminate its unique set of accounting rules that allow operating expenses to be mislabeled as capital investments funded by debt.
Key Data
$5 million
— The reported surplus in the City's General Fund for fiscal year 2011.
$282 million
— The deficit the City would have faced in fiscal year 2011 if GAAP were strictly applied.
$9.6 billion
— The deficit reported for fiscal year 2011 under the new, more comprehensive GAAP standard.
$53.3 billion
— The added expense recognized in fiscal year 2006 when the accumulated liability for Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) was first reported.
$11.7 billion
— The amount of red ink reported under the new GAAP standard in fiscal year 2010.
New York City's capital planning process requires reform to better align with long-term goals, specifically by improving asset condition assessments and providing rigorous economic justification for the $23 billion in planned expansion projects. The city should also transition to funding asset replacements through operating revenues rather than borrowing, while institutionalizing a more comprehensive, strategic approach to capital budgeting.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The City should improve its needs assessments, and develop a systematic plan or timetable for bringing all capital assets to a state of good repair.
The City should place all its capital assets on regular replacement cycles and fund their replacement with operating revenues, not from the capital budget.
Expansion projects should be clearly explained and justified with data that demonstrates economic and other benefits, or a high rate of return on the investment of public funds.
Efforts to institutionalize the PlaNYC approach should be pursued: first, through City Council approval of legislation establishing the Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability as a mayoral office; and second, through revision of the City Charter.
The strategic approach should also be expanded to encompass other agencies and capital assets.
Key Data
$23 billion
— Planned expansion projects for the next ten years.
$83.7 billion
— Total capital investments called for in the recently adopted Ten-Year Capital Strategy.
$60.5 billion
— Total value of City-controlled capital assets.
$5.4 billion
— Estimated cost to achieve a state of good repair for assets covered by the AIMS report for fiscal year 2008.
$2.8 billion
— The funding gap for maintenance and repairs identified in the AIMS report.
The MTA's 2010-2014 capital plan lacks sufficient transparency and funding, with a $10 billion gap and significant cost overruns on major projects. To address these issues, the agency must implement mandated reporting requirements, improve project tracking systems, and align its capital plan with a realistic, unconstrained needs assessment.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
New reporting requirements mandated by the Legislature should be implemented to improve public evaluation of capital projects.
The MTA should commit to greater transparency in informing the public about the status of its capital projects.
This capital plan should be implemented in tandem with an improved information management system for tracking capital projects that provides clear and consistent benchmarks.
The 'dashboard' and/or other reporting tools should incorporate additional information such as the size of and reasons for cost overruns and delays, as required by the legislation passed earlier this year.
The capital program should be amended using a pragmatic approach: the size of the plan should be downsized to reflect a realistic assessment of what can be accomplished.
Planning for the capital plan should be tied more directly to the needs assessment, and priorities should be altered in favor of achieving a state of good repair.
The composition of the plan should be tied more directly to an unconstrained needs assessment (which the MTA should publish).
Key Data
$28 billion
— Total investments outlined in the proposed 2010-2014 MTA capital plan.
$18 billion
— Funding sources identified for the proposed 2010-2014 MTA capital plan.
24 percent
— Amount by which the cost of the South Ferry Terminal project exceeded the initial estimate.
90 percent
— Amount by which the cost of the Fulton Street Transit Center project exceeded the initial estimate.
35-55 percent
— Percentage by which some important signal and communication projects are over budget.
$130 billion
— Adjusted needs estimate for the 20-year period for the transit system.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority's capital planning process lacks transparency and accountability, with projects frequently suffering from significant delays and cost overruns that are not clearly communicated to the public. The agency needs to modernize its information systems to provide consistent, accessible, and milestone-based reporting to ensure public accountability for its multi-billion dollar investments.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
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 MTA should improve its capacity to manage mega-projects and improvements in signaling and communications systems.
The next five-year plan should be based on a realistic assessment of what can be accomplished.
Key Data
$18.6 billion
— Total cost of the 798 capital projects examined by the study.
$28.1 billion
— Proposed total commitments for the 2010-2014 capital plan.
$5.7 billion
— Amount allocated for mega-projects in the proposed 2010-2014 capital plan.
$2.8 billion
— Amount allocated for signaling and communications improvements in the proposed 2010-2014 capital plan.
90 percent
— Cost increase of the Fulton Street Transit Center over its initial estimate.
35 percent
— Cost increase of the Automatic Train Supervision project.
New York City's capital planning process requires significant reform to ensure assets are maintained in a state of good repair and that expansion projects are justified by rigorous economic analysis. The current system lacks comprehensive condition assessments and relies on borrowing for replacements that should be funded through operating revenues.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The City should improve its needs assessments and develop a systematic plan or timetable for bringing all capital assets to a state of good repair.
The City should place all its capital assets on regular replacement cycles according to their useful lives and fund their replacement with operating revenues, not from the capital budget.
Expansion projects should be clearly explained and justified with data that demonstrates economic and other benefits, or a high rate of return on the investment of public funds.
The City should expand the Asset Information Management System (AIMS) report to cover all capital assets and integrate the condition assessments of major capital asset systems into a comprehensive reporting structure.
The City should establish a long-term strategic capital planning document that is accompanied by a shorter-term document that translates the goals in the longer one with specific agency objectives and expenditure estimates.
Key Data
$83.7 billion
— Total planned capital investments over the next ten years.
$23 billion
— Planned expansion projects for the next ten years.
$3.0 billion
— Depreciation of the City's major assets based on historical cost in fiscal year 2007.
$4.9 billion
— Estimated depreciation of the City's major assets based on replacement cost in fiscal year 2007.
$3.18 billion
— Total estimated cost of rehabilitating East River Bridges.
New York State's budget process has historically lacked transparency and accountability, particularly regarding 'member items' and capital project spending, which have often been cloaked in secrecy. Reforms are needed to improve disclosure, establish rigorous performance metrics, and ensure that all state spending is subject to clear, competitive, and accountable procedures.
Recommendations related to Capital Budget Transparency
The Legislature should prohibit appropriations for any specific private (profit or non-profit) entity to ensure funds are used for specific programmatic purposes rather than member items.
The State should require reporting of key performance metrics that are standard across the State for all local government aid programs.
The State should require that appropriation bills be accompanied by a budget summary document that shows the impact of the appropriations on the Governor’s General Fund budget, additional revenue sources, and local governments.
The Legislature should establish budget committees with jurisdiction over appropriation bills to review and approve any appropriation bill before it goes to a vote of the full house.
The State should require each grantee to state the goal and purpose of the award with performance targets for judging a successful program clearly enumerated.
Key Data
$3.2 billion
— Total authorizations for capital projects identified as member items between fiscal years 1996-97 and 2004-05.
$1.7 billion
— Total disbursements for capital projects identified as member items between fiscal years 1996-97 and 2004-05.
$200 million
— Annual appropriation for the Community Projects Fund in recent years.
$39.4 billion
— Total back-door state-supported debt outstanding as of the end of fiscal year 2007.
92 percent
— Percentage of all State-supported debt outstanding that was of the back-door type as of the end of fiscal year 2007.
No results for your current filters. Manually edit your filters, or
clear the filters.
Share Feedback
Give a star rating, write a comment of at least 10 words, or both.
