Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 128


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 127
92 Estimating Soft Costs for Major Public Transportation Fixed Guideway Projects Table 18. Project development budgetary database used. Cost Actual Cost Estimated at as % of PE Project PE As-Built Cost Estimate Portland MAX Segment 1 $214.0 $246.8 115% Hudson-Bergen MOS-I $775.0 $1,113.0 144% Hiawatha Corridor $548.6 $715.3 130% Portland MAX Interstate $301.8 $349.4 116% St. Louis Clair County Extension $359.1 $336.5 94% Salt Lake North-South $261.3 $311.8 119% Portland MAX Westside/Hillsboro $913.0 $963.5 106% Pasadena Gold Line $803.8 $677.6 84% Denver Southwest Corridor $142.5 $175.0 123% Portland South Corridor $125.0 $127.0 102% VTA Tasman West $327.8 $280.6 86% VTA Tasman East $275.9 $276.2 100% VTA Capitol Segment $147.1 $162.5 110% VTA Vasona Segment $269.1 $316.8 118% MARTA Dunwoody Extension $438.9 $472.7 108% CTA Orange Line $496.0 $474.6 96% LA Red Line Segment 1 $914.4 $1,417.8 155% LA Red Line Segment 2 $1,446.4 $1,921.7 133% LA Red Line Segment 3 $1,310.8 $1,313.2 100% San Juan Tren Urbano $950.6 $2,250.0 237% BART SFO Extension $1,070.0 $1,550.2 145% NYCT 63rd Street Tunnel $537.9 $632.3 118% Note: all dollar amounts in year-of-expenditure dollars. little impact on the relative proportion of soft costs. In short, dollar value costs tend to increase together for a given project, regardless of the characteristics of the project. C.14. Soft Costs and Project Development Schedule The length of time it takes to plan, design, and construct a rail transit project may impact soft cost expenditures, as may schedule delay during the project development process. As pre-construction project development phases extend, design costs and project management costs may tend to increase. In addition, delay from the original schedule may also increase soft costs, as certain soft costs continue to be incurred steadily through these schedule delays. LIGHT + HEAVY RAIL: ALL SOFT COSTS LIGHT + HEAVY RAIL: ADMIN COSTS ONLY 60% 60% Management (% of Construction) Soft Costs (% of Construction) 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 2 20% R = 0.01 2 R = 0.01 10% 10% 0% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% Actual Project Cost as % of Predicted Cost at PE Actual Project Cost as % of Predicted Cost at PE 2 2 Sample Size: 16 R = 0.01 t-Stat = -0.31 Sample Size: 16 R = 0.01 t-Stat = 0.32 Figure 67. Soft costs as a percentage of construction versus cost overruns.

OCR for page 127
Supplementary As-Built Cost Analysis 93 Table 19. Project development schedule data used. Planning/ Final Constr- Operation Project DEIS PE/FEIS Design uction Portland MAX Segment 1 1980 1983 1984 1986 Hudson-Bergen MOS-I 1993 1996 1997 1999 2002 Hiawatha Corridor 1993 1999 2000 2001 2004 Portland MAX Interstate 1999 2000 2002 2004 2004 St. Louis Clair County Extension 1995 1998 1999 2001 2001 Salt Lake North-South 1994 1995 1998 1998 1999 Portland MAX Westside/Hillsboro 1990 1991 1994 1996 1998 Pasadena Gold Line 1993 1996 2000 2003 Denver Southwest Corridor 1992 1996 1997 1999 2000 Portland South Corridor 1995 1997 2001 VTA Tasman West 1992 1993 1996 1999 VTA Tasman East 1992 1995 1999 2001 VTA Capitol Segment 1999 2000 2004 VTA Vasona Segment 1999 2000 2005 MARTA Dunwoody Extension 1990 1991 1994 1998 2000 CTA Orange Line 1982 1984 1986 1990 1993 LA Red Line Segment 1 1983 1988 1989 LA Red Line Segment 2 1983 1990 1994 LA Red Line Segment 3 1983 1993 1998 San Juan Tren Urbano 1992 1995 1996 2002 2004 BART SFO Extension 1992 1996 1997 1998 2002 NYCT 63rd Street Tunnel 1989 1992 1994 1998 2001 To explore this potential, this report again turned to data provided from the report from TCRP Project G-07, Managing Capital Costs of Major Federally Funded Public Transportation Projects (Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., 2005). Table 19 shows the project schedule data used in this analysis. This data represents the year in which a project phase began, which is somewhat differ- ent from the midyear of expenditure used in other sections of this analysis. When data was not available for all project phases, or when phases appeared to be unreasonable, projects were omit- ted where appropriate. Resulting sample sizes are noted in the figures, as well as in Table 17. Figure 68 shows the effect of pre-construction duration (from Planning/DEIS to construction phases) on soft costs as a percentage of construction. Total soft costs are presented in the left pane, and engineering costs (preliminary engineering and final design) costs are presented in the right pane. Note that it may be difficult to identify a single year for the "Planning and DEIS" LIGHT + HEAVY RAIL: ALL SOFT COSTS LIGHT + HEAVY RAIL: PE + FD COSTS ONLY PE + FD Costs (% of Construction) Soft Costs (% of Construction) 60% 60% 2 2 R = 0.01 R = 0.02 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Years Elapsed between Planning/DEIS and Years Elapsed between Planning/DEIS and Construction Construction 2 2 Sample Size: 13 R = 0.01 t-Stat = 0.32 Sample Size: 13 R = 0.02 t-Stat = 0.46 Figure 68. Soft costs as a percentage of construction versus years elapsed between completion of the draft environmental impact statement and construction.

OCR for page 127
94 Estimating Soft Costs for Major Public Transportation Fixed Guideway Projects phase for a project since the long-range planning process may be very different for each metro- politan area or agency. The correlation is positive, as expected, but the relationship is statistically insignificant. Measuring soft costs on a per-linear-foot basis, however, produces a stronger relationship, as shown in Figure 69. Total soft costs are presented in the left pane, and engineering costs (pre- liminary engineering and final design) costs are presented in the right pane. In the right pane, the results are pronounced from an x-axis intercept at four years toward a maximum range of about $20,000 per linear foot at about 15 years between the DEIS completion and construction. This relationship holds for engineering soft costs as well, as shown in the right pane. These findings seem to suggest that the duration of pre-construction phases should be con- sidered within the estimate of soft costs. However, the findings in Figure 69 may simply show that costly projects take longer to plan and design. Caution should be given due to the relatively small sample size (15) and the role of four relatively costly projects in this chart. Figure 70 measures the effect of a more narrowly defined pre-construction phase (PE/FEIS to construction) on soft costs, and shows insignificant findings. The relationship shows the correct direction of increasing soft cost percentage with increasing schedule duration but is statistically insignificant. The relative magnitude of soft costs, including engineering costs only, appears to be unaffected by the years elapsed between the preliminary engineering and construction phases. Figure 71 extends the above analysis to include the duration through construction all the way to operations, and finds similarly inconclusive results. Total soft costs are presented in the left pane, and construction management and administration costs are isolated in the right pane. Administration costs are shown here to test the hypothesis that construction and other admin- istration costs may be more likely to be affected by the duration of the construction phase. Although soft costs do tend to go up for lengthier projects in Figure 71, the relationship is not statistically significant. The duration of a project may not cause soft costs to increase as much as delay or deviation from a prior schedule. During a delay, if construction costs and project scope remain stable, but administration activities continue steadily, soft costs in relation to construction costs might increase. LIGHT + HEAVY RAIL: ALL SOFT COSTS LIGHT + HEAVY RAIL: PE + FD COSTS ONLY $18,000 $7,000 PE + FD Costs per LF (2008$) Soft Costs per LF (2008$) $16,000 $6,000 $14,000 $5,000 $12,000 $10,000 $4,000 $8,000 $3,000 $6,000 2 R = 0.24 $2,000 2 $4,000 R = 0.22 $1,000 $2,000 $- $- - 2 4 6 8 10 12 - 2 4 6 8 10 12 Years Elapsed between Planning/DEIS and Years Elapsed between Planning/DEIS and Construction Construction 2 2 Sample Size: 11 R = 0.24 t-Stat = 1.69 Sample Size: 11 R = 0.22 t-Stat = 1.58 Figure 69. Soft costs per linear foot versus years elapsed between completion of the draft environmental impact statement and construction.