Skip to main content

NYC transit system five-year plan rejected

The five-member New York State Capital Program Review Board has vetoed the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s 2015–2019 MTA Capital Plan which the MTA said would renew, enhance and expand the transportation network with a US$32 billion investment. The largest element of the program is safety and reliability projects worth US$22.2 billion to renew the MTA’s mass transit network. It also proposes investing US$4.3 billion in new technology, communications systems and railroad infrastructur
October 10, 2014 Read time: 2 mins
The five-member New York State Capital Program Review Board has vetoed the New York 1267 Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s 2015–2019 MTA Capital Plan which the MTA said would renew, enhance and expand the transportation network with a US$32 billion investment.

The largest element of the program is safety and reliability projects worth US$22.2 billion to renew the MTA’s mass transit network.

It also proposes investing US$4.3 billion in new technology, communications systems and railroad infrastructure and US$5.5 billion to expand the MTA network through major investments.

In a letter to MTA chairman Thomas Prendergast, 1780 New York State Department of Transportation commissioner Joan McDonald said she was vetoing the plan "without prejudice to any particular element of project." McDonald stressed that DOT still believed in "continuing the dialogue" and that a plan was an absolute necessity.

MTA officials say they have plans for securing about US$17 billion of the US$32 billion and will look to other funding partners, including the federal and state governments, to meet the shortfall.

Related Content

  • ARTBA proposes path to breaking gridlock on transportation funding
    March 13, 2015
    The American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) has outlined a detailed proposal it believes could end the political impasse over how to fund future federal investments in state highway, bridge and transit capital projects. The ‘Getting beyond gridlock’ plan would marry a 15 cents-per-gallon increase in the federal gas and diesel motor fuels tax with a 100 per cent offsetting federal tax rebate for middle and lower income Americans for six years. The plan, ARTBA says, would fund a US$401 bil
  • Nearly 59,000 US bridges still structurally deficient, new analysis finds
    February 19, 2016
    According to the US Department of Transportation's recently-released 2015 National Bridge Inventory database, there were 2,574 fewer structurally deficient bridges in 2015 compared to the number in 2014. However, there are still 58,500 on the structurally deficient list and at the current pace of bridge investment it would take at least 21 years before they were all replaced or upgraded. The American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA), which conducts an annual review of state bridge da
  • President to unveil infrastructure funding initiative
    July 21, 2014
    President Obama is to unveil a new federal initiative to help cities and states find private financing for transportation infrastructure. The announcement comes as the White House looks to increase pressure on Congress, which this week is debating a short-term fix to the rapidly depleting highway trust fund that underwrites road and mass transit construction. Under the plan to be unveiled by Obama, the Department of Transportation will open a new investment centre designed to serve as a ‘one-stop sho
  • ATFI disputes toll survey findings
    September 15, 2014
    According to a recent poll by infrastructure group HNTB, 79 per cent of US residents would support "would support the addition of a toll on a non-tolled surface transportation facility if it resulted in a safer, congestion-free and more reliable trip." The poll also found 83 per cent of its respondents would also support tolls on highways that are currently free, which has been a source of contentious debate in Washington. HNTB Toll Services Chairman Jim Ely said the finding bolstered the argument o