Follow-Up Audit on The Department of Transportation’s Installation and Maintenance of Street Name Signs

Executive Summary

The objective of this audit was to determine whether the Department of Transportation (DOT) implemented the six recommendations made in the prior audit report relating to the installation and maintenance of street name signs.

DOT’s mission is to provide for the safe, efficient, and environmentally responsible movement of people and goods in the City of New York, particularly on its streets, highways, bridges, and waterways. DOT installs both large overhead and standard street name signs. Large overhead street name signs are located at the intersections of major, high-capacity, arterial roads and in commercial districts, while standard street name signs are located at every street corner. This audit focused on DOT’s maintenance of standard street name signs, only. DOT estimates there are approximately 250,000 standard street name signs in New York City.

DOT identifies issues involving street name signs mainly through complaints. Complaints from the public, elected officials, and City agencies regarding the condition and absence of both standard and overhead street name signs are received by DOT directly (through email, United States Postal Service mail, and phone calls) and through New York City’s 311 service. Typical complaints involve missing, dangling, damaged, blocked, or faded street name signs. Repairs generally involve replacing the signs.

A prior New York City Comptroller’s Office audit was conducted to determine whether DOT adequately tracks its maintenance efforts with respect to street name signs in compliance with its own internal guidelines. That audit found significant deficiencies in DOT’s maintenance efforts and tracking of street name signs; see Audit Report on the Department of Transportation’s Installation and Maintenance of Street Name Signs (Audit # MD17-063A), issued on June 30, 2017. The 2017 audit report included six recommendations to address the weaknesses found. In this report, we discuss the implementation status of each of those six recommendations, as well as some additional issues identified during our audit testing.

Audit Findings and Conclusion

Of the six prior audit recommendations, we determined that DOT implemented one recommendation, partially implemented a second recommendation, and did not implement four others. Specifically, DOT implemented the recommendation that it ensure that work orders are approved before being sent to the contractor and partially implemented the recommendation that it continue its efforts to develop a methodology for tracking and documenting intersections where street name sign surveys have been conducted. However, DOT did not implement the four remaining recommendations: that it (1) take steps to identify and document its full inventory of standard street name signs throughout the City; (2) develop a comprehensive plan for conducting surveys to identify street name signs that need to be repaired and replaced throughout the City; (3) establish protocols to ensure that 311 complaints are investigated and addressed in a reasonable time frame, and (4) establish time standards for addressing street name sign repairs/replacements once the need has been identified and regularly monitor how well it is meeting those standards.

While examining the implementation status of the previous recommendations, we identified additional weaknesses in DOT’s controls over street name sign installations. Specifically, we found that the complaints DOT received through the 311 service were not consistently recorded and mapped in its GIS database. We also found that 35 of 50 sampled complaints were recorded in the GIS database without service request numbers.

Audit Recommendations

Based on the audit, we make nine recommendations, including:

• DOT should take steps to (1) identify and document its complete inventory of standard street name signs throughout the City and (2) develop protocols to periodically update its records to reflect changes in a timely manner.
• DOT should develop a comprehensive plan for conducting surveys to identify street name signs that need to be repaired or replaced throughout the City, and regularly monitor its implementation of that plan.
• DOT should establish procedures to ensure that 311 complaints regarding street name signs are investigated and addressed in a reasonable time frame.
• DOT should develop a system to track intersections that it surveys using its web-based system where it finds that no work is needed.
• DOT should establish time standards for addressing street name sign repairs and replacements once the need for them has been identified, and regularly monitor how well it is meeting those standards.
• DOT should strengthen its controls over the mapping process to ensure that the GIS database is regularly updated to include all complaints the agency receives through the 311 system and ensure that the GIS database is regularly reviewed for completeness and accuracy in reflecting the status of all such complaints and the corresponding surveys and work orders.
• DOT should ensure that service request numbers are appropriately exported to the GIS map so that it can track and report complaint dispositions.

Agency Response

DOT disagreed with our assessment of the implementation status of the previous audit’s recommendations pertaining to issues that we found still exist. Accordingly, DOT also appears to disagree with the need for the five recommendations in this audit that pertain to those issues.

With regard to the four new recommendations made in this report, DOT agreed with one recommendation and partially agreed with two recommendations. DOT disagreed with the remaining recommendation that it ensure that service request numbers are exported to the GIS map so that the agency can track the disposition of complaints.