Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 118


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 117
82 Estimating Soft Costs for Major Public Transportation Fixed Guideway Projects LIGHT RAIL HEAVY RAIL LIGHT + HEAVY RAIL 60% 60% 60% Soft Costs (% of Construction) Soft Costs (% of Construction) Soft Costs (% of Construction) 50% 50% 50% 40% 40% 40% 30% 30% 30% 20% 20% 20% 10% 10% 2 10% 2 R = 0.00 2 R = 0.00 R = 0.00 0% 0% 0% - 50 100 150 - 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 Alignment Length (000 LF) Alignment Length (000 LF) Alignment Length (000 LF) 2 2 2 R = 0.00 t-Stat = -0.08 R = 0.00 t-Stat = 0.09 R = 0.00 t-Stat: 0.42 Figure 48. Soft costs as a percentage of construction versus constructed alignment length. as the design and construction of stations require many professional services functions. Yet, as Figure 49 shows, soft costs do not appear to depend on the number of stations. Soft costs as a percentage of construction appear to decline somewhat weakly with a greater number of stations, but the relationship is not statistically significant. Stations do not appear to have any effect upon soft costs for either mode. Beyond the simple number of stations, their frequency may also drive technical complexity. Since stations and ancillary facilities (e.g., train control rooms) may require more engineering and design than non-station components, the hypothesis is that a higher mix of stations along the guideway may increase soft costs in percentage terms. Figure 50 compares the number of stations per 10,000 linear feet of guideway to soft costs but finds minimal correlation and no statistical significance. C.8. Soft Costs by Complexity: New versus Extension Whether a rail construction project consists of a new line or extends an existing line may influ- ence its soft costs. On the one hand, more professional services or agency staff time may be required, for example, to integrate a guideway extension with existing train control or traction LIGHT RAIL HEAVY RAIL LIGHT + HEAVY RAIL 60% 60% 60% PE + FD Soft Costs (% of PE + FD Soft Costs (% of PE + FD Soft Costs (% of 50% 50% 50% Construction) Construction) Construction) 40% 40% 40% 30% 30% 30% 20% 20% 20% 10% 10% 10% 2 2 R = 0.01 2 R = 0.13 R = 0.03 0% 0% 0% - 10 20 30 40 - 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 40 Stations Stations Stations 2 2 2 R = 0.01 t-Stat = -0.38 R = 0.13 t-Stat = 1.86 R = 0.03 t-Stat: = 1.18 Figure 49. Soft costs as a percentage of construction versus station quantity.

OCR for page 117
Supplementary As-Built Cost Analysis 83 LIGHT RAIL HEAVY RAIL LIGHT + HEAVY RAIL Soft Costs (% of Construction) Soft Costs (% of Construction) Soft Costs (% of Construction) 60% 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% 40% 40% 40% 30% 30% 30% 20% 20% 20% 10% 10% 10% 2 2 2 R = 0.00 R = 0.01 R = 0.00 0% 0% 0% - 2 4 6 8 - 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 Stations per 10,000 Linear Feet of Stations per 10,000 Linear Feet of Stations per 10,000 Linear Feet of Guideway Guideway Guideway 2 2 2 R = 0.00 t-Stat = 0.25 R = 0.01 t-Stat = -0.34 R = 0.00 t-Stat: 0.44 Figure 50. Soft costs as a percentage of construction versus station density. power systems. On the other hand, a transit agency undertaking an extension project may suggest that relatively experienced agency staff with the necessary expertise be involved, which could result in lower soft costs. Figure 51 shows average soft costs by mode and by project type (new/extension/rehabilitation). The four rehabilitation projects included in this dataset include: SEPTA Frankford, CTA Brown Line (Ravenswood), CTA Blue Line (Douglas), and NYCT Stillwell Terminal. For both modes, and for both measures, average soft costs do not seem to change whether the project is a new line or an extension. Unexpectedly, extensions, not new rail lines, incurred slightly higher average soft cost percentages. Rehabilitation projects had somewhat higher soft cost percentages, but this sample is limited to four heavy rail projects. These findings indicate that the provision of professional services may be slightly lower for the initiation of new lines than for the extension or rehabilitation of existing segments. Figure 52 breaks Figure 51 down into the soft cost components of engineering and design, and project administration and management. Engineering costs appear higher for new and exten- sion light rail projects, while heavy rail engineering costs are fairly consistent between new and extension projects. Heavy rail engineering and design costs are lower for rehabilitation projects. Soft Costs (% of Construction) 50% 45% 40% 36% 31% 31% 35% 35% 35% 27% 29% 26% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% New Line Extension of Line Rehabilitation of Line Sample Size: 19 28 4 Light Rail Heavy Rail All Modes Figure 51. Soft costs as a percentage of construction by project type.