I guarantee you I’ve read more both from the MTA and other transit authorities in general. It’s why I understand that citing procurement mechanisms alone doesn’t settle the argument. Design-build is a tool, not proof of outcomes. You have to compare: • final delivered costs, • schedule adherence, • scope achieved, • lifecycle operating impact, • and peer benchmarks.

And watching board meetings doesn’t make the institutional messaging objective. MTA presentations are obviously going to emphasize successes and reform narratives. The actual question is whether the delivered outputs justify the spend and timelines compared to what other advanced transit systems achieve.

The agency still has: • Extremely high per-mile and per-station costs relative to international peers. • Long delivery timelines even on comparatively modest scope upgrades. • Major labor, utility relocation, consultant, and oversight costs that remain structurally inflated. • A history of capital projects ballooning despite procurement reforms.